While we have since last year already covered the laudable settlement of much larger numbers of refugees (especially in proportion to their existing populations) by countries as such as Lebanon and Jordan than by considerably richer EU countries:
the level of dishonesty among rightists on the issue is staggering. One of the most common talking points I hear from rightists is the bald-faced lie that only Western countries are required to take in refugees. In fact, 86% of all current refugees are taken in by non-Western countries. Lebanon alone (citizen population 4 million) has taken in over a million refugees in recent years ie. 20% of its population are refugees. Jordan (citizen population 6.5 million) has taken in more than 2.6 million refugees ie. 40% of its population are refugees.
In comparison, the far-right notion that a million refugees in Germany (citizen poulation 80 million, not to mention its higher GDP/capita – Germany ~$46000 vs Lebanon ~$18000 or Jordan ~$12000) is already too many deserves to be met with utter derision. Germany could take 20 million refugees WITH EASE if it had the will to do so. But you won’t hear Merkel say this, because she is a coward who can’t even crush PEGIDA.
we had not previously covered refugee resettlement efforts by other poor countries which similarly put the EU’s meagre efforts to shame in comparison. On this topic, the following article provides much good information:
Admittedly, a record 1.3 million refugees sought asylum within the European Union last year, with thousands more applying for asylum every month. Yet what of Sub-Saharan Africa, home to 4.4 million refugees and a whopping 19.5 million “people of concern” to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees?
Where is the rolling coverage of Kenya’s Dadaab camp, for example? Dadaab is the largest refugee camp in the world, but in a move that could displace as many as 300,000 people, Kenyan authorities are in the process of closing it down. It puts the recent British media frenzy over the so-called “Jungle” camp in Calais, France, with its 10,000 migrants, into some perspective, doesn’t it?
Compare and contrast Uganda and Denmark. The latter’s GDP per capita is about 77 times larger than the former’s. Yet in January, the enlightened Danes passed a law allowing the authorities to seize the jewelry of refugees, supposedly in order to cover the costs of hosting them.
Uganda’s 2006 Refugee Act, however, allows refugees in that country to work, travel and even start their own businesses. Is it any wonder that the law is, as a World Bank article put it, “considered one of the most progressive and generous in the world”?
Much has been made of Germany’s “open door” policy toward Syrian refugees, with more than a million migrants and refugees arriving in the country across the course of 2015. These newcomers, however, have struggled to find work given what an investigation by Der Spiegel called “the jumble of individual [immigration] laws and ordinances . . . completely impenetrable for foreigners” and the “17 different types of ‘residency permission,’ ‘residency permit’ and ‘tolerance’ for refugees and migrants.”
Tanzania, on the other hand — with little fanfare in the West and with a GDP per capita nearly 48 times smaller than Germany’s — began the process of granting citizenship to 200,000 refugees from Burundi back in 2014, marking, in the words of the UNHCR, “the largest group in UNHCR’s history to which naturalisation has been offered.”
Yet Europe’s refugee crisis continues to suck up all the oxygen of global publicity. The UNHCR fundraises for a whole host of “special situations” involving refugees. As of the end of October, the “Central African Republic situation” was 17 percent funded; the “Somalia situation” 21 percent funded and the “South Sudan situation” 25 percent funded. The “crisis in Europe,” however? Fifty-six percent funded.
The double standard is as brazen as it is shameful. Remember: The European Union accounts for 17 percent of global GDP; Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for a little more than 3 percent.
By the way, Uganda and Tanzania, and to a lesser extent Kenya, include the arable Nalubaale region:
the location of Kintu’s mythical kingdom, so we can expect Kabaka blood memory to be playing a role in this. Part of me imagines that perhaps Kintu might still be alive and volunteering in a refugee centre somewhere in the area…..